Steve Nyland (Squonkamatic) Sorry, I'm not going to give this one a pass, and whoever decided it would be a swell idea to repackage this barbaric little piece of tripe for the DVD generation deserves to be squashed with a gun butt like the poor little baby snakes unforgivably killed while filming the big massacre scene. Then another adult snake is blown to bits by a shotgun blast, with the film crew apparently using live ammunition on the set. They should have used it on each other.Maybe that is the lesson of STANLEY. Here is proof that our culture has actually evolved since 1972, when all of these proceedings were considered good drive-in movie fun. They even slapped it with a PG, and I can't help but wonder how many kids were sent crying under the back seat at seeing the poor, helpless, barbarically exploited animals brutalized for the cameras. But don't let me rain on your nostalgia parade, especially with the super duper restored special edition widescreen super limited edition restored direct to digital super remastered ultra super Grindhouse edition DVD releases. Go out and buy one and watch the animals murdered, laugh it up -- many reviewers here write mockingly about how FUNNY this movie is -- enjoy your walk down Memory Lane, remember what it was being the idiot who found this entertaining back when you were just a little Neanderthal crawling out of his cave. The guilt will creep up later when someone else bugged by it will ask, "Do you think those were real snakes they were killing in that stupid f***ing movie you made me watch?" Try to rationalize it away. Those poor little things were butchered, you sat there laughing until it happened, and then the fun was over.I saw this on Sunday afternoon creature feature when I was about nine just like anyone else probably reading this. I was horrified and nauseated then too, only now it's for a different reason. Today it's shame, shame at our culture for having been so utterly devoid of compassion to have sanctioned the creation of a movie like this, and shame that anybody would cynically decide that it needed to be revived just to sell DVDs. Don't get me wrong either, I'm not Mr. Animal Rights granola bar Phish idiot hugging trees & eating chipotle tofu wraps. I just have a limit of how much cruelty I can witness, and this movie sailed right past that point and didn't look back. If nobody else will take a stand I will: This movie is evil, cruel, and wrong.As a counterpoint to how animal killings can be redeemed, sort of, consider CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST with its turtle guttings, monkey de-brainings, pig shooting, and the truly traumatizing scene of someone consuming a hot dog with ketchup. At least that movie had the guts to get down in the slaughterhouse run-off drain with its dismembered animal parts and wallow in the bile & stomach contents flowing onto their shoes. STANLEY by contrast uses its animal killings as a plot point for character motivation like its just some sort of soap opera, like the guy wasn't motivated enough to get busy and make the movie end until his snakes were butchered. None of this was faked, nobody ate the snakes after the shoot, and the behavior is inexcusable.Animal killings aside it was a sort of interesting ultra low budget social satire piece right up until about the last 20 minutes, which in my opinion weren't needed at all. The whole bit with the girl out at Snake Boy's cabin was retarded, the film not even caring enough about her to bother showing if she made it back home after the big reptile bonfire at the end. There is even a laugh out loud Stanely Puppet used for some of the snake attack scenes that is absurdly appropriate, but its not enough. The film ain't worth the bad karma it creates. One thing did come to mind while sitting through this crap, which was wondering how many of these noted, respected thespians who elected to appear in this movie got bit by the snakes during filming. Not enough, I reckon, since enough of them survived to make a commentary for the soiled, unwholesome guilt-bomb of a DVD. They should all be ashamed of themselves, you should avoid watching it, and this movie's surviving elements should be burned.2/10; My apologies for the vitriol, and the score of two is for the film actually having annoyed me enough to want to do something about it. Art that doesn't inspire a reaction within its audience doesn't deserve to exist, though this doesn't deserve to either for an entirely different set of reasons. What a shame.

dbborroughs When broadcast TV stations actually showed movies other than re-runs, infomercials and syndicated TV shows this film always seemed to in on every couple of weeks. the plot has an ex-vet named Tim living out in the Everglades because society doesn't take kindly to his being an Indian. Keeping pretty much to himself he makes fiends with the wildlife, particularly the rattle snakes including one he names Stanley. When he feels pressured he uses his snakes to get revenge on the people he feels have wronged him.Good thriller isn't really scary. To be certain your feelings toward snakes will determine the amount of squirming you'll do since this film is full of snakes from start to finish. Well acted the film has a nice feeling of believability to it even as it hits all of the right exploitation high notes. Watching the film again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how well the film has stood up. While no classic it does what it does nicely and then gets off the screen.Definitely recommended. I'm rating it 6 out of 10 because I'm not sure what a fair rating is. My feelings toward the film are higher than that, but I'm not sure its not purely surprise that the film holds up as well as it does.

fotia_autos If your looking to be scared, or seriously enjoy a movie, don't watch this. But... if you want to bust a gut laughing, I highly suggest "Stanley". Full of cheesy movie effects, hilarious dialog, and obvious plot holes, it will crack you up! At least, it did me. The acting is bearable and at least it tries to convey a good message, so thats the only reason I gave it 1 star. Though the beginning is actually o.k., boring, but o.k., eventually the cheesiness mounts to be ridiculous, and it is impossible to resist laughing. I have watched this 20 times at least, and we crack up more and more every time! So gather up some friends, get some popcorn, and get ready to laugh your butt off!

BaronBl00d Abysmal outing about some guy who hates mankind, lives in the swamps of the Everglades befriending snakes, and has some bizarre relationship with one rattler in particular named...you guessed it - Stanley. Even for 70s bad movies, I found Stanley a tough one to sit through awake. The acting is real bad as Chris Robinson plays a man of Native American heritage at odds with the world and in particular with a group headed by Alex Rocco that competes in the swamps for snakes. Robinson wants them to live free while Rocco and company want to make belts, etc... This movie isn't slow; it slithers along. There is little real action and we see Robinson playing house with a horde of snakes. He even puts a bonnet on one and makes a make-shift nursery for the kids. Well, to wind a long and not very innovative story short, Robinson with the aid of Stanley sets out to avenge a wrong he feels was done to him in the past and with anyone out to harm the snakes. People die with Stanley's help and what happens to Robinson at story's end hits you way before it happens. The director in this film paces the action anywhere from slow to slowest. There are some occasional flashes of mediocrity here and there. I enjoyed the quicksand part and the two members of the female cast are banquets for the sorest of eyes. But the film Stanley is not. The acting is uniformly poor, even with veteran Rocco giving an inane performance. How about the cheap sets? I thought at some moments I was seeing a home movie filmed in someone's backyard. The opening and end credits glide by with some incredibly misplaced music.